This is a wonderful red pill for the normies hidden in plain sight!
But I do wonder if you bring this up / think of this everytime Trump says the word "tremendous". Because I know this is the very first time I've seen someone reach for the actual meaning of the word to try and cope / reason with how Trump is using it for "optics". Because he's either using it for optics / redpilling now and every other time he used it, or he isn't doing it now and never did and we're just crazy reaching for straws here.
So Bannon is indeed beating the drums of the fake elections, trying to hype people up for an event we all know is fake. Every other line of his in this video is about the upcoming fake elections and trying to get you to show up and cast a vote in an illegitimate event. Very awkward, kinda suspicious to be honest. Next thing you know he'll be shilling for 2024.
I'm open for discussions on this but Bannon is as lukewarm as it gets.
ACCIDENTAL?? REALLY?? It didn’t WRITE Itself…
lmfao
These alerts are written years in advance, they all use placeholder text. In the case of an event / calamity / emergency you're not supposed to be sweaty typing fast in a computer to get an alert out to people. You're supposed to just quickly hit "SEND" after a quick check of the info.
They got the same problem years back in hawaii when someone sent an alert by mistake.
This is like how journalist will write obituaries years in advance way before a celebrity dies (saying their biggest accomplishments etc). That way they can just quickly check the info and hit Post when it happens.
...Yes? The negative would be some fucked up non-sense logic.
"Jr" is a surname / last name - "Junior". No one with Junior in their name changes it when their father dies, they're still Junior. Same goes for "II", "III" etc. This includes the names of royalty and nobility and etc - like "Richard the third" and stuff like that. They don't change names when their fathers die lol...
Besides, "Sr" is not even a name to begin with, it's a given name, for when a father gives his name to his son. They don't add "Sr" to their names, it's other people who call them that to differentiate between father and son who have the same names now (including when the son has "Jr" in their names). In other words "Sr" is a nickname.
We now live in the new covenant born from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, hence the rules have changed.
This is but one of many interpretations of what is said in the Bible, as nowhere in the Bible this is actually outright stated, and several diferent sects of christianity have their own interpretations of what the new covenant entails or where and how it begins. The "new covenant" was originally derived from a phrase which is contained in the Book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34), in the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).
Generally, Christians believe that the promised New Covenant was instituted at the Last Supper as part of the Eucharist, which, in the Gospel of John, includes the New Commandment. Based on the Biblical passage which reads that, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth", Protestants tend to believe that the New Covenant came into force with the death of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, and they also believe that the blood of Christ, which was shed during his crucifixion, is the only blood sacrifice which is required by the covenant.
Other sects of christianity believe it came into force during that ceremony in the Last Supper, specifically, not with Jesus' blood shed during the crucifixion. Others believe it will only come into effect during (and others after) the second coming of Christ.
One major split is between those who believe that only believers are members of the New Covenant, and (reflecting the idea of the Jewish covenants as national or community covenants) those who believe that believers and their children are members of the New Covenant. These differences give rise to different views on whether children may be baptised: the credobaptist view and the paedobaptist view. Secondarily, there are differences among paedobaptists as to the nature of the membership of children in the covenant.
Another difference is between those who believe the New Covenant has already substantially arrived (Preterists), and that this knowledge of God that the member of the New Covenant has is primarily salvific knowledge; and those that believe that the New Covenant has not yet substantially arrived, but will in the Second Coming, and that this knowledge is more complete knowledge, meaning a member of the New Covenant no longer has to be taught anything at all regarding the Christian life (not just that they lack need for exhortation regarding salvific reconciliation with God). This division does not just break down along Jewish v. Christian lines (as the previous difference did).
And then there's Supersessionism - the view that the New Covenant replaces, fulfills or completes God's prior covenants with the Israelites. The most common alternatives to Supersessionism are the abrogation of old covenant laws and dual covenant theology.
All this to say, that the passage "this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" can be interpreted in numerous ways, and by people who are far older than you and who've studied the Bible for decades (and why not say "centuries" and even "millenia" if we're counting their teachers and their teacher's teachers too). In other words, your interpretation ("We now live in the new covenant born from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ") is your own 'head-canon', your own fan fiction of sorts - and your church's - regarding what is actually being stated in the Bible.
when the rats population reached a specific threshold conpared to space and food several things happened
Now say that to the anons (who are probably 99% in this thread) who think that we should reproduce more and not less. To avoid the scenario you're talking about, we need to aim for less humans not more.
It's in the title itself --- "hypothetical" --- but people who barely even read the title are so addicted to ragebait they'll eagerly bite anything. It's addiction plain and simple, to feel angry at something.
That, or they just don't know what "Hypothetical" means to begin with.
rounds the numbers (...) to try to make it less obvious
Math isn't "trying" to do anything, it's just math. This statement is like claiming 2 plus 2 is "trying" to equal 4, or that 4 is "trying" to be 2 times 2. And the reason they round up the numbers is so they make more sense / are accessible to everyday people --- say, you might not immediatelly know what "0.666 feet" looks like, whereas "8 inches" is a measure everyone can picture more easily.
And yeah it's not "coincidental", because coincidences are a non-issue in math - because by themselves numbers don't mean anything other than a logical relationship between things (ratios, sums, rates, amounts, proportions).
If you divide 2 by 3, what do you get? You get 0,6666666(...) and what does that mean? It doesn't mean anything other than that 2 divided by 3 is 0,6(...666666...).
Was this PositivePatriot fella 'using his brain' and saying this BEFORE the verdict, or is he just scrambling for answers in the aftermath?
Deep down you know the answer, to this one and to the other 9304825 'explanations' that preceded it for the last 3 or 4 years or so.
Are you the kid in high school English class who was like 'The author surely meant something about the loss of innocence and the giving in to earthly desires and the renouncing of God when he said "I ate an apple"' - on a book about eating your veggies and fruits?
This is literally just a photo of Trump on his resort with the caption "I'm back" and a reference to Covfefe (a meme). There's literally nothing else to it other than the man announcing he's back on social media with a funny reference.
But if you wanna get crazy creative about it, be my guest. Nothing wrong with having fun with your imagination I suppose.
Why do you assume the photo is intented to tell anything at all other than "I'm back on social media"?
What is this Truth meant to convey to us beside the fact that Trump is starting to do social media again?
Probably that he wants to gauge his userbase for the next election cycle - it's 2 years away, and it's sensible that he'll be ramping up slowly.
The COFVEVE Act was named as such by Democrats (and a couple Republicans) to make fun of Trump's tweet, and created much later than said tweet.
Trump didn't tweet covfefe to reference the act, which did not exist yet back then. It's the democrats who created it later after the tweet. In other words, it's the other way around.
It's bizarre that months later we started seeing people who claim Trump tweeted to bring attention to the Act... and people praising such 'research'
Except the COFVEVE Act was pushed after the fact and named as such by Democrats (and a couple Republicans) to make fun of Trump's tweet.
Trump didn't tweet covfefe to reference the act, which did not exist yet back then. It's the democrats who created it later after the tweet. In other words, it's the other way around.
It's bizarre that months later we started seeing people who claim Trump tweeted to bring attention to the Act... and people praising such 'research'
It's a standard twitter troll with a standard twitter prank